Jump to content

Are The New "Clancy Franchise" Games Even Relevant?


Waika
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yeah, that's one way to take a thread really off topic... But with all the ridiculous console discussion it looks like that's already a mission accomplished; this just 'rubber stamps' it and makes me want to say: "As if to prove my point"...

:'(

Ladies & Gentlemen, Tom Clancy has left the building...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"That is, at least in the PC world, if the console players see their gameplay as tactical, then the tactical genre as we know it from [GR] is gone."

You've got to be kidding me? Are you really saying that the hardware you use determines if your game is tactical or not? That's absolutely ridiculous. Consoles are practically gaming computers now, with more power than most peoples' PC's. The way a game is played determines if it's tactical. Many games now are the same on console & PC since consoles have caught up to the PC's in some cases.

"if the game can't be modded it also can't be expected to last much over half a year."

In general I agree. That's also why I'm pleased with Ubi's schedule of releasing a GR title once a year. I hope they keep that up.

On the other hand, there are console title still being played: Counter-Strike, Rainbow Six 3 & Black Arrow, for example.

The problem with the ability to mod games is that along with that you get people modding to an advantage and cheating. The longer a game is out the more ways some people will find to ruin it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that this whole discussion is emotional for PC gamers...but there are several stereotypes here that I just don't understand. There are also some "conclusions" and "assumptions" that I have noticed PC gamers have. It is obvious to me that my experience and knowledge is not sufficient to explain these things.

In a very serious interest in good adult discussion I provide the following framework:

Console Gamer Stereotypes (That PC gamers have)

1. Console gamers are all 15 year old run and gun gamers.

This is absolutely not true. I go night after night playing with gamers that have an average age of 35 or more. I see this consistently across almost all of my console multiplayer games. Sure, if you join random rooms of gamers you are going to get a cross-section of the game community...so you will ALWAYS have several young players....but you almost always have older gamers too.

The addition of the friends list means I instantly have a core group of great guys to pay with....on the release night of a game. Again, I repeatedly have great experience with older mature gamers...not the 15 year old brats that are your neighbor's kids.

You can't go to the bus station and expect to be able to invite everyone there to your living room for a party. The same goes for online gaming. If you take time to cultivate online friends...if it be on PC or console....THAT determines the weight of your experience. "Everyone on consoles = mindless adolescents"...just isn't true.

2. Console gamers have no interest in tactical gameplay.

Most of the games I reference above are built on cooperation and teamwork. This is not just Ghost Recon either. No matter the game when things switch to team...it is all about teamwork and communication in the games I play night after night.

This can further be seen on XBOX and Gamefaqs boards by people looking to hook up with posts like "looking for players that play tactically". I count at one of these a week at least.. maybe more. When new players work their way into rooms we are hosting...they strongly desire a connection to other tactical gamers.

Clearly many console gamers look for tactical play. I can personally show you a group of 200+ guys that are LOOKING for that SPECIFICALLY.

PC Gamer Assumptions

A. consoles are ruining games for everyone

I really don't see it that way....but it occurs to me that the "Game marketplace" has one of two characteristics:

It is either like this:

The world is horse drawn buggies and chariots. Along come cars. Eventually cars become the transportation of choice for BILLIONS of people. The makers of chariots, buggies, and the like enjoy a niche...but the world's preference has moved on

Or like this (someone here made the comparison):

People just loved board and card games. Eventually they enjoyed playing PC games...but they still played board and card games....now console games are here in a big way....people still enjoy playing board, card, and PC games....

Where do you think the future of game entertainment lies...in new board games? In new card games? In new PC games?...or is it in new consoles and console games?

I would like to think that NEITHER of these are exactly an accurate comparison...but they make me think.

B. Game developers should not let us PC gamers down, they should continue to develop PC games with the exact same zeal as they have in the past.

Is this a "reasonable" expectation? Can a developer survive developing games for a smaller market when his competitors are reaping huge profits from selling a game on a console vs. a PC?

Perhaps it is BLATANTLY APPARENT that I have similar stereotypes and assumptions that need to be discussed. I welcome such comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to think that with the gap in PC & console gaming so small that both genres would benefit. If developers have less to do to get games playable on both types of hardware they can concentrate more on game quality and advancement. I know that PC's will pull away again due to constant development, but I don't think that difference will be as dramatic as it has been in the past when consoles, even when new, were FAR behind PC's.

At the moment, the only difference between the new console and PC's is the input device. There are PC games I'd like to see on the 360 though, we need more games that support out preferred gaming type.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as you guys are going to continue to Troll the thread off topic into ANOTHER consoles vs. PC thread and the Moderators are going to do nothing about it; take a look at the TOPIC post where I even acknowledge some of what you're saying...

As the topic post clearly explicates; I was soliciting a discussion as to whether the current issue of Clancy games were Relevant to the Audience that helped make them what they are -- which includes console Fans of the original games: Ghost Recon and R6.

No where did I solicit or present the case that PC's are better or "more tactical" then consoles, neither has anyone else -- however some of what is presented as discussion here is so petty, sophomoric and below the basement I'm moved to respond...

Reading into other peoples posts, digging for dirt, trying to drive a pet agenda and assuming meaning that is not there is just ######; read Hacksaww's post, no where does he say, imply, suggest, or hint that he thinks. feels or otherwise believes: "that the hardware you use determines if your game is tactical or not" -- he as quite simply and literally stated that if the current issue of Clancy games as seen by console Fans is regarded as tactical it bares no resemblance to the kind of tactical development offered in [GR] (which was and remains available on many console and even hand held platforms).

The statement is about what's determining how tactical game play is defined by popular gaming culture, not hardware.

And Ick your post and assumptions are so off the charts I can't feature you have enough introspection to appreciate what you're own assumptions: "I understand that this whole discussion is emotional for PC gamers.... What a load!

"The discussion" as you so aptly phrase and then completely disregard it, was not even about consoles vs. PC until you got emotional and had to drag the topic into a console vs. PC comparison that's not even germane to anything anyone has said here.

Why not confine your console discussion to the console forum? This was a PC game discussion, in a PC game forum for PC game fans, that could apply to those console Fans that liked and understood the original Clancy game designs -- and was moved to this forum for god knows what reason.

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is trolling, and it's not in a PC forum, it's in the Ideal Shooter forum now which does not specify hardware. It's a *discussion* and we were *discussing* it. Take it to heart if you want to, but there's been no foul here except for your attitude and rudeness at our input.

Back on topic:

Is the franchise relevant? Well, if the best example is an old game, then I guess implies that nothing since then has been as relevant. I suppose you answer your own question. In my opinion, if it wants to be "relevant" (whatever relevance a game truly has) it has to address the console market as well as PC. Also, I believe that it is hardly a dead series, although it does seem different. To me, the game isn't tactical, the gamer's approach is (or isn't).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the PC thread, right? I thought I was in the XBOX 360 thread when I read Ick's post.

OK, now it's neither a PC or console thread as I've moved it from the GRAW 2 PC forum to the "ideal" shooter game forum :shifty: (Let me know if you think it fits better elsewhere)

The Clancy franchise now encompasses both PC and consoles, and I think we're all talking about what we think should be in a Clancy game.

It's a useful and interesting and mature (so far) discussion ... so carry on!

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having played a lot of GRAW 360's multiplayer (for the first time, sustained) over the last few days, I can say that they definitely are relevant. It's [GR] with increased strafe speed and slightly lessened movement bink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having played a lot of GRAW 360's multiplayer (for the first time, sustained) over the last few days, I can say that they definitely are relevant. It's [GR] with increased strafe speed and slightly lessened movement bink.

Having played GRAW 36O I can "definately" say that's a subjective matter and subject to opinion, as well as many exceptions based on fact, game-design and game metrics. Nice game that GRAW 360 is, it doesn't hold a candle to [GR], and there's a lot more then just strafe speed that separates it from far more tactically sophisticated and realistic games like the one that proceeded it and who's name it bares.

Just a few deal-breakers from the top of the list include grossly inaccurate weapons with "here I am" Star Wars tracers fired from every weapon, a mean engagement distance that's often ridiculous even for realistic CQC/B, play speed and death-match kill count play that prevail over anything like realistic mission objectives and stealthy complex squad tactical maneuver, and maps that look more like hyper compressed and surreal miniature golf courses or Disney Land dioramas then something that offers realistic scale terrain and settings.

It may be your cupa, you may love it, and it may be the answer to all you seek in gaming but there are plenty that don't find it in the least engaging or remotely relevant to what attracts them to squad tactical realism gaming or that originally interested them in Ghost Recon.

sadeyes.gif

Edited by Waika
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as you guys are going to continue to Troll the thread off topic into ANOTHER consoles vs. PC thread and the Moderators are going to do nothing about it; take a look at the TOPIC post where I even acknowledge some of what you're saying...

If it doesn't fit the subject line and original poster comments it is out of bounds?

If someone makes a comment I am not allowed to build upon that comment in a direction I see fit to discuss?

I have obviously offended you. My apologies for that.

I am uncertain as to what constitutes "on topic". I assumed this was a free board with free comments...subject to standard rules for posting......like no politially charged comments and similar beliefs that generate agitation.

Edited by Ick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are The New "Clancy Franchise" Games Even Relevant?

...No.

Having spent a good amount of time with GRAW on the 360 I can say that, while a damn fun game, it is not Ghost Recon. The multiplayer is more like a 3rd person counterstrike with a small bit more depth, to me. I'm really hoping GRAW2 will finally give a game worthy of the name, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

I do, however, have very high hopes for Armed Assault and Rogue Warrior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it doesn't fit the subject line and original poster comments it is out of bounds?

Easy there, Ick. This did start out as a PC thread. And there are a bijillion places to discuss PC vs. console.

To the topic: Are the Clancy games relevant? I have to say yes, but that is in part because they are the best things going. The games have been sped up and simplified for the masses, there is enough of the old spirit left in them that they are still great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer the question more directly, I'd have to say that no, the new Tom Clancy games aren't relevant as tactical shooters. I think that they've gone too far astray from what the original games were, and from what made those games good. I'm not saying that the new games are bad or anything, I'm just saying that they aren't good for the reasons the initially originally were. Some of the reasons for this are in my other post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By moving my thread to a forum where PC and Console discussion for the 'ideal game' are lumped together; I think my post, the thread it created, and the intentions of this sub-forum are all made irrelevant to what they've intended to achieve.

Even though I like the 'virtual guy' and enjoy many of his posts; I hold to a position that's the epistemological opposite regarding console/PC game design to the one implied by the quote in Sup's signature; which is little more than marketing proselytizing based on Ubisoft's inevitable console marketing shift. There's obviously explicit and implicit vested interests represented in that quote, and in avoiding or voicing disdain for critical discussion regarding the inevitability and differences between the Console and PC platforms and the kinds of games that can/cannot, will/will not be developed for either.

These differences are not a matter of opinion or subjective 'touchy feely' issues that can be easily "designed around" -- or designed around at all... In many respects critical to this genera; no level of game design parity can ever be achieved between Console and PC, unless or until there are dramatic differences in how consoles are built, licensed, supported at all levels of the design build chain, marketed, and sold -- something that's not likely to ever happen as Consoles were conceived to establish many of these precedents, that close not just the hardware but many aspects of licensure, development, and marketing.

Many discussions devolve just to the hardware differences, but ignore licensure and the equally decisive Marketing and Publishing significance that due to sheer financial might and top heavy corporate inertia obviates PC consiol similarities due to how console games are developed, the costs involved, licensure, and the fact that most Game Studios (and all Studios germane to this discussion) are wholly owned by Publishers that have a vested interest in established (and in establishing) canned product development, 'franchise', licensure, product cycles, and marketing practice.

Real innovation, risk taking, and most critically to this genre: creating products that challenge Consumers are not and never will be a product of mainstream commerce... The Console is the vehicle and venue of mainstream gaming commerce and the original Clancy game designs some of us covet were not created for a mainstream audience.

sadeyes.gif

Edited by Waika
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By moving my thread to a forum where PC and Console discussion for the 'ideal game' are lumped together; I think my post, the thread it created, and the intentions of this sub-forum are all made irrelevant to what they've intended to achieve.

Hey Waika, believe me, I and many other members of GR.net who are primarily PC gamers have shared interests with you to find a game that captures the essence of the original RS/GR games. This sub-forum is probably much more important than you know to help realize what we are looking for. :ph34r:

GR.net staff reserve the right to move topics to forums we think are more appropriate, and don't do it on a whim. I'm sorry if it did not jive with your original intentions, but as quoted below in your first paragraph, I got the feeling it was to discuss a "big picture" view of how both the R6/GR franchises have changed based on how gameplay has evolved from PC to console as the primary dev platform.

The way the thread was heading, I did not think it was appropriate any longer to keep it in the GRAW 2 PC forum, as that forum is for discussion primarily of GRAW 2 PC.

If you look at how dumbed-down the Clancy games have been since Ghost Recon and Raven Shield, including the console games that even have Console Fans kicking and screaming for more depth, realism and sophistication: Are these new games even relevant to the Audience that these forums once served?

This is an excellent question for discussion. Here's another 2 cents:

Obviously Lockdown and Vegas are huge departures from the original R6 gameplay. Vegas easily could have been the start of a new franchise, but some smart guy at Ubi marketing realized that keeping the R6 name would suck in all the old fans as well as attracting new fans that like Vegas to buy the older titles. So instead of expansion packs, you are seeing a whole new iteration of R6/GR game every year to generate greater revenue.

Compare this to Hideo Kojima and how often he thinks it is worthy to release a sequel of his MGS series.

I still give credit to the hard-working devs behind the scenes who struggle hard to improve each iteration and push it out soon enough every year to fit with Ubi's timetable, but that's one of the reasons why we are seeing buggy products - especially on the PC side of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No hard feelings of any kind; it's your forum to moderate as you please... But the discussion in this thread is just one more poster child example that there is a lot that seperates Console STS Fans, from PC Fans of the same genre, and the differences really don't make the discussion more constructive or productive.

I did start what I feel might be a more productive discussion for PC [GR] Fans here called What Attracted You To Ghost Recon?, it will certainly be more helpful for something I'm working on...

:)

Edited by Waika
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the discussion in this thread is just one more poster child example that there is a lot that seperates Console STS Fans, from PC Fans of the same genre, and the differences really don't make the discussion more constructive or productive.

I disagree. Outside of your segregating yourself to try and look elitist, there's not much difference at all. Consoles make streamlined interface and playability a bit more of a priority, due to the lack of a keyboard and mouse, and often times they slow down movement speeds to compensate for the same deficiency, but aside from that they're the exact same games these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Outside of your segregating yourself to try and look elitist, there's not much difference at all. Consoles make streamlined interface and playability a bit more of a priority, due to the lack of a keyboard and mouse, and often times they slow down movement speeds to compensate for the same deficiency, but aside from that they're the exact same games these days.

Your remarks are nonsequitars. And you can disagree till the cows come home; that doesn't make me an elitist any more then it makes the Moderators segregationist or elitist for having separate forums for PC and console... Neither do your opinions and the gross simplifications and over generalizations based on those opinions regarding the differences between consoles and PCs make them fact.

:rolleyes:

Edited by Waika
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waika,

Aren't they virtually the same games these days?

For example, Rainbow 6: Vegas is virtually identical between the XBOX 360 verion and the PC version.....Oblivion was also largely the same?........etc.

Granted, I don't have PERSONAL experience with PC Oblivion...all I know is what I read from other's comments....and emails of guys following my weapon guide and notes in Vegas. They sure seem to be almost identical to me. The PC Vegas fans sure think they are the same.

Do you have some examples of stark differences? IT would be interesting to hear from guys that have experiences in BOTH versions of certain games...to delineate the differences if any.

edit------------------------------------------------

Perhaps that is the point thoug...they ARE similar and becoming MORE the same. For game developers...once they design the XBOX version...almost already have a PC version done since it is largely already PC code?

Edited by Ick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waika,

Aren't they virtually the same games these days?

For example, Rainbow 6: Vegas is virtually identical between the XBOX 360 verion and the PC version.....Oblivion was also largely the same?........etc.

Yes, those games are virtually the same because they are ports, that is thae Developer took a design-build approach to make the game most appealing on a specific platform; in the case of Vegas the Xbox 360, and they shoe-horn that game design into and on to other platforms with little/nothing changed but new i/o device code and compatibility code for render back-planes etc..

The point here is not that games can be made to behave similarly on two different platforms; you can make an F1 spec car perform just like a Ford Pinto -- but what company would want to make a billion dollar racing car perform like a poorly designed consumer commuter car?

The point I'm making, and it's a point acknowledged by many game Developers and even their Publishers; is that every platform has unique features, advantages, and disadvantages; and these differences favor certain and specific approaches to game design-build, and make various aspects of game-play and game features virtually impossible on one platform and a sure bet on another.

Let me give you just one very simple example of hundreds of critical design points that separate how an Xbox 360 scale realism shooter would have to, by design. be both different, less realistic and to scale then a PC game, if as a Developer we were trying to realize the best each platform had to offer:

  • Microsoft in its wisdom has made it impossible to interface game i/o with anything but a Microsoft licensed controller. You can not use an after-market controller unless the Manufacturer has paid a rather enormous licensing fee for access to Microsoft's proprietary USB i/o driver and game interface.

    Similarly. as a game Developer, my Studio would have to pay Microsoft this enormous fee to give our game access to anything other then the Microsoft controller; like a keyboard and mouse, and I'd have to find a hardware Developer also willing to pay Microsoft the license fee to license their hardware, and stuff the manufacturing costs of building hardware to support Microsoft's propritary i/o.

    The cost of interfacing games with a keyboard and mouse on the Xbox 360 is as big a barrier as making it technically impossible to do so. Eventually it may happen as it did with the Xbox and third party vendors breaking the law, but for now it's an insurmountable fact that virtually requires we design games for the Microsoft controller and it's limitations.

    Those limitations are many, very real, and stuck in the laws of physics and human physiology; surely ou've heard the bromide "He's all thumbs"? Human thumb motor control can not move as precisely or at even a reasonable fraction as fast as the other five digets, so all kinds of game design compromises have to be made in a first person interface for games that rely on this controller.

    Due to the limitations of the thumb, and they very design of the controllyer itselef -- the creation of null zones, slow control time constants and features limitations make tp-scale control of movement an out-of-the-question proposition with this controller.

    Also, because human thumb motor control is less precise and fast; weapons must be made very unrealistically out of scale with regard to accuracy; the game design will have weapons are grossly inaccurate, and game design must emphasize full-auto fire, and unrealistically large hit areas. Precise movement like leaning, and Raven Shield's 'fluid posture', are either an out-and-out impossibility, have to be simplified into one button hide and lean presses like the Vegas feature, or end up being too awkwardly implemented for console players to bother using them.

The end result is very different game-play prevails on the console and always will; even for just this one and tiny among many larger and more significant design limitation and difference -- and these differences are not going to go away, they're part and parcel of why consoles exist and how they can have been made financially lucerative.

You may not like or even accept these things as the very limiting facts they are -- but facts they remain, and they do completely obviate similarities in game design between console and PC when you are truly using the hardware capabilities of the platform you're designing and building for to the better of it's capabilities.

sadeyes.gif

Edited by Waika
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess we're going on with the pc vs console thing anyway.

You see the controller as a limitation, I see it as a benefit. With PC gaming, your capabilities are determined by the hardware you have as much as your skill. We've all seen custom gaming keyboards, keyboard-like button layout devices, gaming mouses, super expensive graphics cards...then there are the software cheats. It's not a level playing field since almost no 2 PC's are alike. It ends up being who has spent the most money or written the best code to win, as well as skill, but not simple skill. With a console, everyone has pretty much the same controller and the same hardware. Level playing field so that you can showcase your talent and playing ability instead of your PC set up. There are simply fewer crutches with a console/controller. When you win on a console, people know you won by doing what they could have done. They need to improve their skill, not order parts because their pointer was vibrating a bit and the mouse was a bit laggy.

I don't know where you get that people won't use the controls available to them on a console. I use mine to the fullest, as do the guys in my group, and we do not play run & gun. If I can lean, go prone, move slowly to avoid detection or take cover, you can bet I'll be doing that as well as any other options I can use--that the other players can too. That's simply how you play the game well. If you ever see a good patient team go into a room full of run & gun kiddies on a tactical game, you quickly see the kiddies dropping when they die and get frustrated.

Edited by Raw Kryptonite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess we're going on with the pc vs console thing anyway.

You see the controller as a limitation, I see it as a benefit.

My contribution to the off topic discussion is not a digression to what people 'see' it's a recitation of the limitations and differences of respective platforms; I've said absolutely nothing about what people: 'see', like, prefer, or perceive as a benefit.

With PC gaming, your capabilities are determined by the hardware you have as much as your skill. We've all seen custom gaming keyboards, keyboard-like button layout devices, gaming mouses, super expensive graphics cards...

That is a gross oversimplification and over-generalization...

then there are the software cheats.

As there are on consoles...

It's not a level playing field since almost no 2 PC's are alike.

Another over-generalization and oversimplification; even if you had a point, which is certainly arguable and miles more then you've already gone off topic -- many serious realism Fans are not looking for the Counter-Strike nirvana of verses play on magic level playing field with a mggical weapon casino prize shopping spree.

Real combat offers nothing that remotely resembles a level playing field, fair play, or good-sportsmanship; that's why many of us that prefer and seek more realism; perfer COOP games, not to mention that they makes for a much more camaraderie, a more mature, and friendlier game-play environment.

It ends up being who has spent the most money or written the best code to win, as well as skill, but not simple skill.

A totally false and completely incorrect assumption. In good game design skill always prevails and this has been demonstrated exhaustively where players on the below minimum spec system are able to prevail over player on the SOTA PC.

With a console, everyone has pretty much the same controller and the same hardware. Level playing field so that you can showcase your talent and playing ability instead of your PC set up. There are simply fewer crutches with a console/controller. When you win on a console, people know you won by doing what they could have done. They need to improve their skill, not order parts because their pointer was vibrating a bit and the mouse was a bit laggy.

Another ridiculous over-generalization and oversimplification that Microsoft would like you to believe (at least before you give them your money, but one that's patently false. The Console after-market is now more rife with hacks, tweaks, and add-ons to improve your console's 'edge' and give players an advantage in versus play gaming then the PC market... It's simple marketing and commerce 1001 -- people go where the money and opportunity can be found...

If it were allowed I could post links to literally thousands of Xbox 360 tweaks, hacks, cheats, exploits. and after-market parts that improve performance -- there are hundreds if not thousands of web sites dedicated to just to hacking, tweaking, exploting, cheating and improving the 360's performance...

Not only that it's far cheaper, lower risk proposition to hack and tweak a 360 then a PC; if you break your 360 your out at most $300, burn a PC CPU or video card to the ground, and it can be twice or three times the replacement cost of an entire Xbox 360 for just the fried part, not to mention the time involved in recovering a system...

I don't know where you get that people won't use the controls available to them on a console.

I don't know were you got that I 'got that' as I never said or implied anything of the kind; perhaps you should try reading the thread before posting, and posting on topic when you do...

:rolleyes:

Edited by Waika
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...